The Shack

[judah]

Dr Albert Mohler has some interesting things to say about this book here.

[PamelaP]

I've read with interest your last couple of posts, Judah.

The problem that Al Mohler identifies regarding lack of what he calls "Biblical discernment" (which I would call human reasoning on what the Bible says) is a distinctive for some nonconformists because they don't appreciate (or want to submit to) what they would see as self-righteous intellectualism. I have to say that this tends to be my own stance also.

I do distinguish between "discernment" (which is a gift of the Holy Spirit) and intuition (which is not). It is the Holy Spirit who enables us to see spiritual truths with spiritual eyes - not the result of our sometimes unsanctified imagination, no matter how humanly intuitive we may be. So when Christians talk about "discernment", we have to remember that much is said and written by human beings (albeit Christian bishops and philosophers) which emanates from human reasoning and not from the Holy Spirit. This is particularly true where such Christians do not accept the ongoing purpose and work of the Holy Spirit in today's world.

I liked your phrase regarding the sovereignty of "God having charge but not control". I believe it to be a crucial phrase for understanding. My question would be "how much is anyone, Christian or otherwise, governed by God in control rather than God in charge”. So much of what we see, read or hear is subject to our imagination before it is subject to God’s control, even the things on which we are bidden to think – that which is true/honest/just/pure/lovely/of good report according to Philemon 4.8

To my mind, anything outside of the Biblical text is less authoritative than the peace of the Holy Spirit that guards the imagination of our hearts. I rely heavily on that sense of peace. It doesn’t bother me that someone else may not have a sense of peace over exactly the same piece of writing or rhetoric because God created us uniquely – to relate and respond in a multitude of ways – we are not pre-programmed. Orthodoxy finds it difficult to come to terms with this – and, ISTM, that’s where the distinction between Calvinism/Reformed and Arminianism comes in. To be honest, I don’t, and cannot read, universal salvation from “The Shack”.       

[judah]

I cannot claim authorship of the phrase "God having charge but not control" (nor is it my belief either) as it was found in question form raised by Roger Olson in his book "Finding God in the Shack" where he briefly discusses the relationship of God and evil happenings.

Yes, one's position in relation to Calvinism/Arminianism (or the Augustinian/Pelagian debate) understandings of this relationship does dictate the kind of response one will have to that question. My own is with St Augustine and John Calvin as I cannot conceive of a truly sovereign God in a universe of His own creation where even one molecule is maverick, but there is also much to be said about God's holy will in all its aspects - sovereign decretive, perceptive, or that of disposition - and that of our own, truly free or in bondage to sin.

However, I do wonder what kind of "Christian" doesn't accept the view that there is an ongoing purpose and work of the Holy Spirit in today's world. Surely it is more to do with the nature of that work, and whether or not there is an acceptance of the immutability of God (and that the ongoing purpose and work of the Holy Spirit remains the same as ever, that is, aligned with God's revelation in Scripture) or not, where the Holy Spirit is claimed to be doing some sort of "new thing" that challenges to the point of contradiction our traditional teachings from Scripture?

Will the Holy Spirit really be teaching readers those things that are contradicted in Scripture, or is this variance from the truth coming from elsewhere - unsanctified human imagination? Even so, that this book is in existence has been ordained by God (says I, from my Calvinist position) but His purpose is for good, not for evil (again, from my Calvinist position) and thus it can still be put to good use even though it, in places, contradicts His revealed truth.

[judah]

To be honest, I don’t, and cannot read, universal salvation from “The Shack”. ~ PamelaP

In his response to the question "Does the book promote universalism?", Wayne Jacobsen, collaborator on The Shack, writes the following...
 
Some people can find a universalist under every bush.  This book flatly states that all roads do not lead to Jesus, while it affirms that Jesus can find his followers wherever they may have wandered into sin or false beliefs.  Just because he can find followers in the most unlikely places, does not validate those places. I don’t know how we could have been clearer, but people will quote portions out of that context and draw a false conclusion.
Source

I am reminded of the words of C.S. Lewis (of whom I am a fan) in "The Last Battle" (The Chronicles of Narnia) where he has Aslan tell Emeth, the righteous young Calormene who worshipped the false god Tash, "Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me" and "Not because he [Tash] and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the service which thou has done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, thehn, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted. Does thou understand, Child? ... Beloved, unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek."

Despite my love of CSL, he still has me regard with caution some of what he writes, and this whole issue of whom one worships and gives obedience, and the name and specific knowledge of that one, remains something of an unresolved dilemma for me when I consider this view along with the "letter of the law" concerning idolatry and the specifics of Scripture. God has told us His name (so why do we even call Him "God" - what word is that?) and we can know him truly, if not exhaustively, through His special revelation. At least it is a relief to know that He is the epitome of justice and reads my heart with accuracy, seeing through all my misconceptions to know me both truly and mercifully.

Aaaah, please forgive the ramble... 'tis how I am at present. But do others share any of these random wonderings as well? Or am I on my own with this?